Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Karnataka vs Revanna S on 9 July, 2019
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).5292 of_2019
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)No.7003/2019)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. …………. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
REVANNA S. …………. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court by which they were directed to regularize the service of the Respondent.
The Respondent was appointed on a daily wage basis on 01.03.1995 in the Government SC/ST Boys College Hostel, H.D. Kote Taluk, Mysore. As he was continued for a long time on daily wages, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka which was disposed of on 18.04.2007 with a direction to the Appellants to consider his Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by BALA PARVATHI Date: 2019.07.11 regularization. The Appellants rejected the request of the 17:24:19 IST Reason: Respondent to regularize his service, aggrieved by which he approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, 2 Bengaluru. The Tribunal disposed of the original application on 09.03.2012 directing the Appellants to consider regularization of service of the Respondent.
The Appellants rejected the request of the Respondent for regularization on the ground that he did not complete 10 years of continued service without the aid of the interim order passed by the High Court.
The Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (Act of 2012) was notified on 15.02.2013. Certain benefits pertaining to the continuance of daily wage employees on completion of 10 years and the payment of minimum time scale along with other benefits were provided in the said Act. The above Act does not contemplate regularization of daily wagers.
Aggrieved by the rejection of his request for regularization, the Respondent filed application Nos.5168- 5169 of 2013 which was allowed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. A direction was issued to the Appellants to consider the regularization of the service of the Respondent. Dissatisfied with the direction to consider his case for regularization, the Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Karnataka. On a consideration of the history of the case, the High Court issued a positive mandamus to the Appellants to regularize the service of the Respondent.
Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the Respondent 3 does not have a right for regularization, especially after the Act of 2012 was brought into existence. According to him, the Respondent is entitled to be considered only for the benefits flowing from the Act.
In its judgment dated 09.03.2012, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal held that the Respondent worked for more than 10 years in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of an interim order passed by any Court or Tribunal. While holding so, the Tribunal observed that the rejection of Respondent’s request for regularization on the ground that he does not comply with the requirements of paragraph 53 of the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others1 was erroneous. The said judgment of the Tribunal has become final as it was not challenged by the Appellants. In view thereof, the Respondent had a right to be considered for regularization of his service in accordance with the judgment in Umadevi’s case on the basis of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 09.03.2012.
The rejection of the request of the Respondent for regularization of his service in the light of the Act of 2012 is not correct. It is relevant to note that the Act of 2012 does not deal with the judgments which were passed earlier granting the benefit of regularization to daily wage employees. Therefore, the judgments of the Tribunal 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 4 and the High Court on regularization remain unaffected. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we do not see any reason to interfere with the direction issued by the High Court to regularize the service of the Respondent.
Eight weeks’ time is granted to comply with the order. The Civil Appeal and pending applications stand dispose of accordingly.
....................J (L. NAGESWARA RAO) ....................J (HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI;
9th July, 2019
5
ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.13 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).7003/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-07-2018 in WP No. 36491/2016 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS REVANNA S. Respondent(s) Date : 09-07-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil,Sr.Adv.
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Ms. Rachitha Herimath,Adv. Mr. Chinmay Desh Pande,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. S. N. Bhat, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The civil appeal and pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(B.Parvathi) (Sunil Kumar Rajvanshi)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)